An UNMODIFIED Boeing 767 cannot fly @ 510 knots @ Sea Level. (hoax)

I mean what could be more damning then Congressman Kurt Weldons aide laying out the Orion charts for Able Danger. We know they knew it was coming and
they knew the players. Orion had been tracking them for years. We know about the money transfers from Pakastani INI. We can extrapolate on a great
deal more. BBC scripted reporting (pre-news) but hey as long as we can use science to disprove the mechanics of it. Is the sun the planets climate
driver - hmmm (but I digress) Then we have carte blanche to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Don't mind PNAC or any of it just focus
on how it might have happened and therefore nothing more need be said because science says this is how it could have happened.

Perhaps the emphasis needs to fall on oh I don't know - a consensus of some manner. Can we at least agree that until we can find something to agree
upon then we will never act as a cohesive unit. Divide and conquer anyone? You know in your gut that something does not pass muster here maybe we can
come together at this point and work on what we do next instead of what happened then.

The problem with these 9/11 thread is that brainwashed people will never accept anything that contradicts the "oficial" story.

No matter your logic,the graphs, the twisted physics, they will always find something to hold on to.

Me as a person who happens to know a lot about statistics and probability, can and will acknowledge they the event of 9/11 could happen, YES but its
possibility of happening is into the trillions, so I use occams razor and thing what is easier that some paper on fire and debris bring down a 57
story building by fire straight down, or was it demolished on purpose? what is the possibility of making maneuvers on a heavy (loaded with transcon
fuel) 767 at over 500 knots and hitting a building with no breakup or mech failure TWICE ?

There a re a lot of small plot holes on the 9/11 agenda and the aircraft (all 4 involved) have its problems adhering to the official story,
acknowledging them is a surefire way to dismantle the kool aid feed by the perpetrators.

No 767 can fly for that long at that speed while maneuvering period. either they would have broke apart, missed the target, both or simply crashed
way before entering manhattan.

Well if you like to use logic and statistics whats the odds of taking down a building with demolitions without any prep work. See when you see the
demolition companies take down a building they go in gut the interior walls exposing the structure. Then they plant explosive charges running wires
throughout the building because the charges have to be sequenced. Then they cut through certain supports in order to guarantee the building will fall.
This is weeks of work for a crew so when did they have time to do all this? Because if they didnt do this no guarantee the tower would collapse in
fact odds our it wouldnt.And call me crazy but i think the office workers would have been very upset if crews had come in cut through their walls and
ran wires all through there offices i can all but guarantee we would have known. So by just randomly using explosives you cant bring down a building
case in point that wasn't the first time the world trade center was attacked.So if they couldnt prep the building and couldnt collapse the building
using explosives this leads to the logical conclusion no explosives were used. Not to mention when explosive charges go off there is little doubt
large booms fractions of a second apart sounds like a machine gun i watched them demolish a 30 story office building near me.

So we ruled out demolitions we know the towers came down aircraft were spotted hitting them so obviously they must be the cause. Unless we can prove
they just happen to have structural fatigue and fell on there own and the plane had nothing to do with it.

Think it through.. in light of all evidence, including that which reveals in rather self evident terms, that the twin towers did not really
"collapse" at all but were and must have been brought down by explosives in a high precision engineered CD commencing at around the impact areas.

So you are under the assumption that the pilots traveling close to/exceeding VNE speed hit exactly where the explosives were placed? You see this is
the random event part that basically obliterates the whole preplaced explosives speculation. Think about it for a second....think about the
impossibility of the timing and happen chance that the plane hit where it should and as the building collapsed the explosions went off to the
millisecond correctly...twice...perfectly....

This would take God like abilities to pull off due to the many randomness aspects of it all. Why is it so hard for you to believe that the energy
involved was so great that it was like a house of cards in relationship to that energy and extra explosions were not needed.

The energy from freefalling was 1.2 x 10 to the 12th power joules and that would equal to about 300 tons of TnT per tower on the low side...wouldn't
that be enough TnT to create what we saw, or do we need more as you suggest?

I'm guessing at a 10% variance on the radar speed? the lower side of that is 459 knots at impact, which isn't too far off the MIT estimate.

Its also worth noting that the aircraft was diving all the way, not straight and level and from 6000ft coming down it was flying between 300-325knots
until approximately one minute before impact. That suggests to me that the stresses on it may have been exceeded in the inital dive (but as we can see
from EA990, the plane did not break at a much steeper descent) and were within limits up to a minute to impact, may have been exceed by the time it
hit, but that would be too late to matter.

Just look how fast it was, how it was defending and maneuvering to crash... in my humble opinion quite a feat for a non pilot.

BTW is very posible that a 767 can and will exceed maximum parameters of flying due to inexperience faulty instruments or deliberate acton, but
executing maneuvers at such high speed means G forces at exceded parameters, so to paraphrase other posters examples you buy a 120 mph max tire, ut
it in your car and the drive it at 130 mph, chances are that nothing will happen, but inflate it more by 5 psi or less by 5 psi and drive at 130 mph
and hit a small pot hole and chances are that you will have a flat or destroyed tire.... same here.

A 767 loaded with treason fuel and PAX, on a fast and POWERED descent, exceded parameters and making maneuvers.... possible YES, probable not very
and TWICE ? The same as the colapse but towers ? really BOTH? the same way?...

Oh, we can absolutely agree that something stinks about 9/11, what led up to it and/or the aftermath which followed it.

I'm personally satisfied by things like the testimony and exhibits used to convict Zacarias
Moussaoui that the physical process which went from take off through crash that morning is fundamentally accurate. He had a defense team there
too, who had every opportunity to challenge all that evidence in open court and for the record. Some of it was. Much wasn't, and it includes all the
photos of the airliner debris from the crash/attack sites. Testimony regarding them as well. It's the murder trial of 9/11, basically, and the first
one to date to have run clear to verdict.

I'm always surprised people don't refer to that, as what was open to challenge by both sides under oath, vs. the 9/11 commission report that was as
political as the warren commission, albeit for quite different reasons IMO.

If we agree to the basics that something definitely stinks, whether that's gov't involvement by actions or the same by omission of action,
then we end at the same place. Complete re-investigation and a need to have it done right. That, we can absolutely agree on.

TextWell if you like to use logic and statistics whats the odds of taking down a building with demolitions without any prep work. See when you see the
demolition companies take down a building they go in gut the interior walls exposing the structure. Then they plant explosive charges running wires
throughout the building because the charges have to be sequenced. Then they cut through certain supports in order to guarantee the building will fall.
This is weeks of work for a crew so when did they have time to do all this? Because if they didnt do this no guarantee the tower would collapse in
fact odds our it wouldnt.And call me crazy but i think the office workers would have been very upset if crews had come in cut through their walls and
ran wires all through there offices i can all but guarantee we would have known. So by just randomly using explosives you cant bring down a building
case in point that wasn't the first time the world trade center was attacked.So if they couldnt prep the building and couldnt collapse the building
using explosives this leads to the logical conclusion no explosives were used. Not to mention when explosive charges go off there is little doubt
large booms fractions of a second apart sounds like a machine gun i watched them demolish a 30 story office building near me.

The thing is maybe the explosives that were used were not any type of explosive we know of.
This operation...in my opinion was carried out by an elite group of operatives who could have used an advanced type of explosive unknown to us.

TextWell if you like to use logic and statistics whats the odds of taking down a building with demolitions without any prep work. See when you see the
demolition companies take down a building they go in gut the interior walls exposing the structure. Then they plant explosive charges running wires
throughout the building because the charges have to be sequenced. Then they cut through certain supports in order to guarantee the building will fall.
This is weeks of work for a crew so when did they have time to do all this? Because if they didnt do this no guarantee the tower would collapse in
fact odds our it wouldnt.And call me crazy but i think the office workers would have been very upset if crews had come in cut through their walls and
ran wires all through there offices i can all but guarantee we would have known. So by just randomly using explosives you cant bring down a building
case in point that wasn't the first time the world trade center was attacked.So if they couldnt prep the building and couldnt collapse the building
using explosives this leads to the logical conclusion no explosives were used. Not to mention when explosive charges go off there is little doubt
large booms fractions of a second apart sounds like a machine gun i watched them demolish a 30 story office building near me.

The thing is maybe the explosives that were used were not any type of explosive we know of.
This operation...in my opinion was carried out by an elite group of operatives who could have used an advanced type of explosive unknown to us.

Do you think when you have to start saying things like advanced technology we dont know about to defend a theory might be time to reevaluate it. Look
technology isnt developed in secret there is allways labs involved they publish papers. Even mics which people confuse as nano thermite there are full
papers on the stuff. So unless you are saying the government created something along the lines of the manhattan project to develop an explosive that
could take down the towers when in truth they didnt need to destroy them. Lets look at it logically assuming the government had a reason to do this.
Crashing passenger liners into the towers would accomplish the same thing. Lets say the towers survived the attack without collapsing nothing would be
different.The towers would have to be demolished we still would have went to war there would still be a memorial thought with less names nothing would
change. So why was it required to set explosives it wasnt so this means the towers collapsing were a random act.

Now i personally think people are being spoon fed this whole false flag stuff to throw you off the real conspiracy.Look theres clues out there but you
guys are chasing the wrong rabbit. For example when Carrie was asked in an interview about his investigation on 9/11 he made the rather strange
statement that this being a 30 year old conspiracy. I remember laughing the reporter missed it and said no i was talking about 9/11 and he responded
so was i. Did you know the UK insurance company is suing the saudis for support an aid to the terrorists on 9/11. Here i quote

"Absent the sponsorship of al Qaeda's material sponsors and supporters, including the defendants named herein," the suit claims, "al Qaeda would
not have possessed the capacity to conceive, plan and execute the September 11 attacks."

The complaint extensively quotes counter-terrorism officials affirming that financial resources are crucial to al-Qaida's ability to launch attacks.
It also gives specific examples linking the Saudi government to al-Qaida financing.

So who attacked us the saudi government now why apparently as carrie puts it its over something that started in the 70s. Why did the bush
administration protect the Saudis and why did he rush them out before the FBI could speak to them. Why was a saudi ambassador caught at one of the
residence of one of the terrorists who then fakes a heart attack. Yet he miraculously feels better when he gets to the hospital and the state
department releases him without answering the questions of the FBI. YOU ARE ALL ASKING THE WRONG QUESTIONS! Why does Osama Bin Ladens family still
fund terrorists to this day. Yet were allowed to fly back to Saudi Arabia instead of being detained.Why did the state department keep stopping the FBI
investigation into the Saudi embassy involvement it was considerable.

Boy it has been a while, a long while since I have posted on ATS, and here I come across a thread that I could have sworn I saw nearly word for word
years ago by another member. But anyways, I guess it is just coincidence..........

This was a Boeing 747SP (a shorter, faster, baby jumbo jet) on a flight from Taipei to Los Angeles International Airport. Ten hours into the flight,
about 300 nautical miles from destination while in cruise at 41,000 feet it flew through severe clear air turbulence. This resulted in a loss of power
from number four engine (the outboard, starboard engine); despite the efforts of the flight engineer, engine four eventually flamed out.

Although the crew began procedures to relight the engine, they did it well above Boeing's recommended maximum altitude of 30,000 feet. A lack of
rudder input meant the crew were not doing enough to correct the yaw caused by drag from the dead engine; although the autopilot was making corrective
actions, the autopilot installed in 747s at the time only controlled the ailerons (which control roll, or bank) and not the rudder (which controls
yaw). Both were needed to effectively counteract the extra drag, and in the absence of this the aircraft began gradually rolling to starboard.

The drag on the aircraft was also reducing its airspeed, and adjusting the autopilot for a shallow dive did not improve matters, so the captain
disengaged the autopilot to increase airspeed manually. Unfortunately at the time the autopilot was applying maximum port aileron to counteract the
drag from the dead starboard engine; the crew should have matched this with their manual controls when disengaging the autopilot but didn't, so the
roll continued at a higher rate. The NTSB said in its report that the captain was focused almost exclusively on the airspeed problems at this point,
and the aircraft was in cloud so there were no visual references to what the aircraft was doing.

After about 30 seconds the aircraft made a wing-over and rolled completely, descending rapidly at up to 60° down-angle and losing about 30,000 feet
in less than two minutes. Speeds exceeded the airframe's maximum mach number of 0.92 (92% of the speed of sound) on two occasions, and strong gee
forces were felt for several minutes, up to a maximum of about five gees. About ten feet of the port tailplane and five feet of the starboard,
including large parts of the elevators, were ripped off by aerodynamic forces during the descent, and during the periods of high gee the inboard main
landing gear was forced down which also resulted in several of the landing gear doors falling off. There was sundry other damage to the empennage area
and the landing gear bays.

At 11,000 feet the aircraft broke through the clouds allowing the captain to get visual references, and finally stabilise at about 8,500 feet, after
which engine four was successfully relit. With part of the landing gear down and one of the hydraulic systems empty, it was impossible to reach LAX
with the increased drag, so the captain diverted to San Francisco International Airport and made an emergency landing. There were several injuries
caused by the high-gee portion of the incident but no fatalities.

The NTSB concluded that the incident was caused by "the captain's preoccupation with an inflight malfunction and his failure to monitor properly the
airplane's flight instruments which resulted in his losing control of the airplane."

Although the 747 was severely damaged by the incident—including the wings being permanently bent upwards—it was repaired and returned to
service.

Now, a 747 that broke the sound barrier twice in uncontrolled dives, survived AND landed with some serious damage, kinda makes claiming a 767 that was
in a controlled gentle dive reaching just over half a Mach 1 for a short time was suppose to break up or be unable to do so , seem kinda foolish.
Just saying.

I too would like to see a document that says a plane cannot exceed this "flight safety" speed for fear of immediate destruction.

Is it a coincidence that the magnitudes in both reports are roughly equal, yet units of velocity are different?

Plus the radar speeds are 15% (AA-11) and 17% (UA-175) greater than the theoretical speeds, respectively. Yet the MIT report states they are roughly
10% greater, without citing the actual NTSB velocities.

There was plenty of verified prep work, floors were closed for weeks at a time for "fire proof" painting, floor reinforcement for thousands of
batteries and computers. BOTH POINTS OF IMPACT WERE COMPUTER ROOMS, were the computers real??? Or were there explosives in the batteries and
computers.

Here are a couple of links that show the area and explanations of plausible theories based on REAL interviews!

The 81st floor in both Towers were mechanical floors where a dozen 24 ton elevator hoists were housed.

This is the same floor in WTC 2 (I believe) that supposedly had extensive work done to install battery backups for one of the tenants computer
systems.

The 81st floor had beams instead of trusses (not sure if it was the whole floor, or just under the elevator hoists) and thicker columns then the
floors directly below. In a CD, this would be a key floor to take out first because of the stronger construction and in order to release the kinetic
energy created by dropping the elevator hoists on the floors below.

Seems different reports don't all agree about with floor failed first. I remember one of the NIST reports cited the 81st floor and the FEMA reports
cited the 80th Floor. I think a section of floors all failed simultaneously and that the core section of those floors was blown up first, via
explosives in the elevator shafts.

Also, the mechanical floors directly below 81, 75-77 had another structural difference that was likely exploited in a CD and that is the way the
columns were set. On the regular floors the columns were staggered, however on the mechanical floors 75-77 and 41-42 the columns were set at an even
height, which created seams that around the perimeter of the building. Architecturally this was considered a weak spot, which I believe was
exploited

The mechanical floors don't usually have too many tenants, so these are easy places to work without anyone ever noticing and even if someone did see a
guy working, how the hell would you know if those wires might be for a fuse or someone's new lighting fixtures? People think it would be hard for
teams of people to get the buildings ready for CD, when in fact, it would have been ridiculously easy, especially when you had folks like Paul Bremer
and Jerome Hauer to provide all the access anyone would need to do the work. One of the big reasons for the 1993 Bombing was to give them an excuse to
do major renovations to the entire complex.

The NTSB used radar from JFK, EWR, LGA, HPN and the USAF RADES for their speed analysis. This is the same radar used in the NYC Terminal Area to
assign speeds and vector aircraft arriving and departing the busy NYC Terminal area, as well as USAF radar which helps to protect our country (well,
apparently not on 9/11).

If some people think the radar information used daily in the NYC Terminal Area is wrong, they should never get on another flight as the same type of
radar is used throughout the world to keep airplanes from running into each other through speed, altitude and heading assignments, in real time.

If they feel MIT can do a better job than ATC, they should petition the FAA to replace ATC and ASR radar with an MIT professor looking at a video
screen, to vector traffic.. but we're probably best served to stick with ATC and ASR radar, for now.

neformore
Its also worth noting that the aircraft was diving all the way, not straight and level and from 6000ft coming down it was flying between 300-325knots
until approximately one minute before impact. That suggests to me ..

That's not accurate at all i don't think. Where did you get that? was it also from the Professor's report, or do you have a cite to support it?

Did the plane suddenly slow down in the midst of it's descent after reaching 6,000 ft? It's possible i guess.. although as far as i know there wasn't
a mid-descent leveling out.. nevertheless, it doesn't alter the magnitude by which it exceeded it's Vd limit for sustained periods of time.

FYI, please see NTSB Radar Data analysis in this regard.

"During the descent from 12,000 feet to 6,000 feet, the aircraft groundspeed remained between 500 - 520 knots. As the aircraft made it's descent
to 1000 feet, it accelerated (there goes Zaphod58's hypothesis about self propulsion at level flight on final approach) and impacted
World Trade Center tower #2 at approximately 510 knots groundspeed.

Thus an EAS of 510 knots = 722 knots or Mach 1.19, at 22,000 feet, and at still higher altitude, 915 knots or 1.38 Mach, at 35,000 feet, and reaching
Mach 1.39 and 1.4 at about 38,000 ft. It's an absurd speed, 90 knots, NINETY, above Vd of 420 (EAS) which again, represents an equivalent airspeed of
Mach 1.19, at altitude (22,000 ft.)
An unmodified 767-222 cannot do it, it's impossible unless modified, and impossible to control and maneuver at such speed, particularly for an
untrained pilot with limited training, and skill level, and zero airtime in the the genuine article. It's not possible and it cannot be believed, not
in light of the facts before us.

There was also this study in early 2002, which arrived at a nearly identical speed to the NTSB Radar Data Impact Speed Study Report whereby 586mph =
509.2 knots. Coincidence..?

New York Times
February 23, 2002
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER CRASHES; First Tower to Fall Was Hit At Higher Speed, Study Finds

By ERIC LIPTON AND JAMES GLANZ

Researchers trying to explain why the World Trade Center's south tower fell first, though struck second, are focusing on new calculations showing that
the passenger jet that hit the south tower had been flying as fast as 586 miles an hour, about 100 miles an hour faster than the other hijacked
plane.
The speed of the two planes at impact has been painstakingly estimated using a mix of video, radar and even the recorded sounds of the planes passing
overhead.
Two sets of estimates, by government and private scientists, have surfaced, but both show that the plane that hit the south tower at 9:02 a.m., United
Airlines Flight 175, approached the trade center at extremely high speed, much faster than American Airlines Flight 11, which hit the north tower at
8:46 a.m.
In fact, the United plane was moving so fast that it was at risk of breaking up in midair as it made a final turn toward the south tower, traveling at
a speed far exceeding the 767-200 design limit for that altitude, a Boeing official said.
''These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed,'' said Liz Verdier, a Boeing spokeswoman. ''It's off the chart.''

Nevertheless, for reasons already stated above, the NTSB analysis must be considered the most reliable and accurate determination of the south tower
plane's speed throughout it's ascent to final approach, and maneuvering, to impact.

Edit to add:

There was also an NTSB video speed study, wherein they arrived at the same impact speed as their radar analysis when using screen prints from the
video.

"Using distances taken directly from the video screen, flight 175's groundspeed was calculated to be between 473 and 477 Knots just prior to the
collision with the building. Using distances taken from video screen prints, groundspeed at impact of 504 Knots and 507 Knots were calculated. This
compares to an impact speed of 510 Knots calculated from radar data in the Radar Data Impact Speed Study (AA11 & UA 175)"

Of course, as to the MIT professor's analysis, measuring distances directly on a video screen from a 3rd party video not made for analyzing speed will
be a bit inaccurate due to foreshortening and the curvature/overscan/underscan of the screen/TV/monitor imaging itself. Because of this, the video
screen prints used by the NTSB will be more accurate as it is a flat image on a piece of paper.

But that said, the ASR radar will be the most accurate and reliable determination of speed.

Hope this helps clarify in regards to your question.

Best Regards, and Happy New Year indeed. No hard feelings here on my end, as i loved your Christmas alone, not alone at ATS thread. That's always
priceless.

Hello General, sir,.. hey, i see you got five stars for that post! You're truly a five star General, probably more now that i've mentioned it!
Thanks for dropping by.

With all due respect, i don't get the impression that you've really paid close attention to the OP, it's fundamental argument or the content of the
thread, but, having just popped in after a long hiatus, and welcome back btw, you of all people certainly deserve the benefit of the doubt, so i do
invite you to explore the OP and the content of the thread to really come right up to speed so to speak no pun intended.

As to China Air, along with the other near Mach examples, relative to the south tower plane data, in particular as it relates to Vd limit and EAS, I
promise to work up a comprehensive reply, tomorrow, because it's time to sign off right now and go to bed. I have in effect already covered it
however.

You yourself might want to look into it (China Air 006) further though, particularly as it relates to these claims about exceeding mach, not just
once, but twice. You sure that's not just an internet rumor of some kind? Trust me, you haven't done your research. I mean no disrespect however
when i say that. Honestly (and playfully).

Anyway, by the time you return i ought to have something up in reply for you to take a look at, and in the interim, should you come back before i'm
able to get to that, and i'm just tired as can be, again i do invite you to more closely scrutinize the OP and thread discussion to get up to speed
on everything that's been presented.

But that's in a shallow (ish) dive of 6000ft per minute over approximately 2 and a half minutes, whereas 990 dropped 17,00ft in 30 seconds and
still came out of the dive intact, albeit pulling up at around 16,000ft.

Now I get the air density thing BUT, to me when I look at all this, I see that its possible for 175 to have survived all the way to impact, given that
990 would have gone through massive stresses when it pulled out of its dive and subsequent climb.

Now I have an adage, and it goes like this

"9/11 is the rule, not the exception to it"

And applying that, what I see is an aircraft that performed to its limits - and may indeed have exceeded them but stayed intact - piloted by people
who really couldn't give a damn whether it broke up or not, that ultimately hit the tower.

So what we have here is a difference of opinion on the same thing. I'm not an expert at this, but frankly, neither are you and as I'm always at great
pain to point out about 9/11 - despite what people might think they know - not one single one of them was there, on the plane, experiencing what was
happening, so none of them can say for sure.

Even a simulator can't say for sure, because its virtual, not nuts and bolts and even if you took a 767 and tried to replicate the event it
wouldn't be the 767 that hit the tower because there would be variances in materials and manufacturing and tolerances.

And that is the problem with painting something as an absolute. Life isn't about absolutes at all. There are many, may instances - quite a few have
been bought up here, where aircraft have performed above and beyond what was necessarily expected of them.

What you can say is that a 767 might not have been able to survive the descent. What you can't say is that its impossible.

Just to back that last bit up... here's "impossible" for you

ETA - please note - I'm not being condescending here, or trying to belittle. I haven't called anyone "stupid", or "sheep" or suggested they are
"nuts", or tried to make out that I'm right and they aren't. What I've given is my opinion. That doesn't make me anyone's enemy, or diametric
opposite. It simply means that I see things slightly differently

I wanted to toss out another thought and it's bugged me from day 1 on this. It supports the idea of 4 half-way trained amateurs flying aircraft they
simply had LOTS of hours in for the route and movements they made ...and not independent thought to adjust or change plans mid-stream.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here...but I don't recall that anyone above the impact floors got out alive. So, the point of impact became the body
count, literally as much as figuratively for how it ended.

Given that, hasn't it struck anyone else as odd that buildings fully capable of producing 40-50,000 casualties.....produced so few? That's not to
take one thing from the horror of the loss. It's to note that well trained, well motivated and calm pilots who decided to die that way for an
attack...could have probably devastated a fair % of lower Manhattan with one simple change.

Adjust altitude and approach for the lowest possible strike point, yet still above the first series of reinforcements for vertical support? The
buildings wouldn't have pancaked, as they'd been designed to do in catastrophic failure. The center of gravity would have been thrown SO far by only
degrees of imbalance at the start of a collapse? They'd have toppled into the surrounding city, not remained within their own footprints, IMO.

It's precisely what they tried to do in 1993 at the same location by using a truck bomb within one tower's parking garage. They finally brought them
down..but thank god..they had no better skill to it in 2001 than 1993 showed. They certainly showed no real skill or feats of airmanship.

Why is it, that the simple answers here are always ignored, in favor of a OMG ineptness by the terrorists, foolishness by our military, wow I am so
glad that everyone of my friends no longer displays most of these characteristics, and the ones that do I have abandoned.

Why not consider that things are not AT ALL what you think they are, and gain amazing strength in life and beyond from it.

Given that, hasn't it struck anyone else as odd that buildings fully capable of producing 40-50,000 casualties.....produced so few?

Wasn't it election day?
The normal work day was just getting under way. 9:03 for first strike.
After the first hit every person below impact evacuated. Plus the undamaged building was evacuated too.
So out of 220 total floors only 32 floors of people died. Less than 15% of total floors.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.